Through the Wormhole: The Riddle of Black Holes

They are the most powerful objects in the universe. Nothing, not even light, can escape the gravitational pull of a black hole. Astronomers now believe there are billions of them out in the cosmos, swallowing up planets, even entire stars in violent feeding frenzies. New theoretical research into the twisted reality of black holes suggests that three-dimensional space could be an illusion. That reality actually takes place on a two-dimensional hologram at the edge of the universe.

Black holes are almost as difficult to imagine as they are to detect, but a few scientists have been up for the task over the centuries. Cambridge scholar John Michell wrote a paper in 1783 in which he hypothesized the existence of "dark stars" — stars so large and with so much gravity that light wouldn't escape their surfaces. Most astronomers of the day thought it was an absurd notion.

Then, in 1915, Einstein published his general theory of relativity, providing a framework that allowed for a reinterpretation of Michell's hypothesis. An Indian graduate student by the name of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar piggybacked on Einstein's theories to suggest that stars of a certain size — much larger than our sun — would experience a catastrophic collapse at the end of their lives, thereby transforming the bodies into cosmic vacuum cleaners whose powerful gravity could suck all light and matter into their black maws.

212 Comments / User Reviews

I wish the powers that be had kept the old term for a black hole: a dark star.
So, a question just for fun: If the Sun and the planets, Earth included, made its way to the galactic center(not such a wild idea considering the Milky Way will collide with Andromeda some day), and rotated around the SMBH like the star S2, increasing in speed until it zoomed at 11,000,000 mph, would we feel anything different here on Earth?
Not that the cosmic rays and radiation at the galactic center would allow us to live anyway. But would going from our current speed to S2-level speeds make a difference?

i´m only 14 so I might not know what i´m talking about it seems that if a black hole is connected to a white hole then what happens when you go through a black hole do you pop out of it´s white hole could that be the answer to like time travel.

The intro: squeezing earth to be really dense wouldn't actually cause light to not be able to escape from it. The density of it may be equal to a black hole's, but it is the strength of gravity that prevents light from escaping. The mass of the earth would still be the same, and thus the gravity would still be the same.

Maybe there are other quantum mechanisms that may counteract what I'm saying, but it's not given. Morgan's intro statement seems to imply density is what causes light not to escape. No, it's the amount of gravity. And the amount of gravity of earth, whether you squeeze and compact it or not, is the same.

They think that matter disappears into the black hole but it doesn't; it just travels in the zero resistance of the void and instantly re-appears on the other side of the black hole. As for the mind, it's exactly like the universe, a trip from void to void

Everything only exists in the human mind. Our universe is the creation of the mind. We always look outward to find answers, take away the human mind and there is nothing. Its all an illusion, if you read between the lines quantum physics begins to point toward this idea.

Nope, I don't think so. Did you ever read what Richard Feynman said about quantum physics? Same thing applies to black holes, from what I can tell. For sure, the more math you know, the better. A great deal of it can only be understood at all (forget trying to visualize, or fanciful, comparative descriptions) through that medium.

Information is hard to recover, but not lost. Just try to recover all the components of a paper you just burnt. You need all the elements, like the carbon dioxide, monoxide, ash, etc, to rebuild the paper. All the elements are there. Entropy tells us that some things happen in only one direction because it would be very difficult to reverse.

conciousness would be something stamped on a piece of fabric elswhere...and if all information truly stored and math itself can produce infinite equations to explain things, then anything can be predicted or rebuilt

Some of the info and simulations are pretty interesting and I will continue to make my way through the series, but so far I'm finding they don't go deeply enough into explaining some of the theories. If you're not already an astro-cosmo-physicist, good luck keeping up.. and if you are, would you be watching this?

I have long considered the shape of the universe to be similar to a funnel shape, but everything is round, so round it may be. I now also suspect the universe to be rotating, the black is rotating. Even more recently i have felt the walls of this universe to be carbon based.

Time existed prior to the big bang, time has always existed, yet we simply cannot enter that time, it spans multiple dimensions, these are not dimensions as we think of them, they are like russian dolls if you will, each exists within the next Space existed before the big bang, yet not the space we know, it was much smaller and expanded with the big bang. Gravity was intense prior to the big bang, being made weak at the point of the big bang.

We are contained in something, a slowly rotating ball of carbon. What happens to stars and galaxies which reach the edge of this carbon structure is anybodys guess, i do not think anything happens, possibly, these galaxies simply begin a journey around the edge. It is the spin of this carbon structure which is causing the mass in the universe to accelerate outwards towards the edge, i think possibly at the edge, there are strong gravitational forces being created by the spin, which has a pull on subsequent nearby galaxies, like a domino effect. In explaining why galaxies do not fly apart, i wonder if it is the direction of rotation which prevents this.

We cannot see this spin, because of the blackness, i gives us no visible cues to its rotation.

Your just not getting it, i'm asking what black is, light is the opposite of dark, i know what light is, what its composed of, but what is this dark which makes up most of the universe. It must surely be one of the greatest unsolved mysteries.

I consider this thought, i place a light in a black container and switch it on, to me on the outside, i see no light, its completely absorbed by black, but then i step inside my black container with the light, now i see both the light and the surrounding blackness, as i do in my universe. It suggests we are contained in a black object.

We are not contained in a black object, we are contained in a universe with light, quantum foam and universe run by energy, we are run by energy, by electrical forces, to be contained in strictly a blackness means we are in a void, a nothingness, no energy, no electricity/magnetism, no time/motion, of which there is no such thing, because how are we to visualize it if it is a nothing, a void, no time/motion, we also would be a nothing, that is why I always say that there is always a something, instead of a nothing.

ddss
- 07/13/2012 at 09:45

Remember that black holes are called that because we cannot see what is happening inside but we can sure see all the effect the black holes have on their surroundings. Our galaxy would fall apart if we didn't have a massive black hole in the center.

Epicurus
- 11/30/2011 at 04:56

it is only dark according to the visible light spectrum. look at it in other spectrums.

Archie McIsaac
- 11/24/2012 at 20:31

There does not have to be a container. If you go out into a dark field where there are no other lights and you have a candle, you will only see so far before all you can see is black. It is simply the absense of light. On another note, black is not a colour, it is simply the absense of light. So when no light reflects off of an object it appears black or if light has nothing to reflect off of period then all you can see is blackness. Light has to be directed into your eyes for you to see anything but black. This is like 9th grade physics. Not really much to explain.

Craigzz
- 11/25/2012 at 17:39

You do not understand as a direct result of your being educated by conventional teaching, you have like most ,no true comprehension of what surrounds you, you have only the limitations of your mind which is bound by the inherently misguided information of our failed attempt at human civilization, and evolution of humans which has stalled and possibly reversed, We see black, what we do not see is color., or what truly surrounds us, you do not need eyes to see.

David Gorman
- 11/24/2011 at 08:00

Craigzz. You originally asked the question “what is black” and the way you posed this question you seem to be referring directly to our perception of black, of darkness, of the absence of light. Our eyes are instruments designed to convert electromagnetic radiation into an electro-chemical impulse that our brain then interoperates. The cells at the back of our eyes are only sensitive to a small range of the electromagnetic spectrum, the visible spectrum. In actual fact light covers a vast range of wavelengths from short to long - gamma-ray - x-ray - ultra-violet – visible – infrared – microwave – radiowave. In truth when you turn off the lights in a room the room is in fact not completely dark as any “body” i.e. any object, above absolute zero emits electromagnetic radiation, the perfect example of this can be found when thinking about thermal imaging. You will no doubt be familiar with thermal imaging goggles which show a contrast between hot and cold regions, quite simply the goggles are sensitive to the infrared spectrum and at this wavelength humans in fact glow, we emit infrared light. So to return to your scenario of the black room, in fact it is lit by you and any object above absolute zero, we just lack the natural hardware to sense it. Now how does this apply to space, you refer to the blackness of space and ask what is it? That is a very powerful question. You are talking about the ether. Scientists asked the question what does light travel through. If you look at any other system that involves the movement of waves there has to be a medium for which the wave can propagate through i.e. ripples in a pond (water), sound waves (any sufficiently dense material), electrical signals (a sea of electron in the condition band), but what about light? It transpired that light is comprised of an electric and magnetic field oscillating perpendicularly to one another each inducing in the other the restorative force necessary to continue to oscillate. There for light is self contained and requires no medium. This does however pose another problem. The speed of a wave through a medium is determined by the properties of that medium i.e. sound travels faster in water (more dense) than in air (less dense). So if light does not travel through a medium... what governs the speed of light? In trying to answer this question the ether is once again being considered. To return to the perceived blackness of space and justify my yammering on about the nature of light there is no point in space that is devoid of light. When the universe was created it was supposedly filled with both matter and antimatter, naturally whenever the two come into contact they mutually annihilate converting their mass into electromagnetic energy. It just so happed that there was more of one type of matter than the other meaning there was a surplus of what we now term matter. So now we have a universe full of electromagnetic radiation + a soup of fundamental particles. A great deal of these particles are charged and so will interact with the electromagnetic radiation, scattering it, effectively rendering the universe opaque and homogenous. As the universe expanded the matter became more dispersed, the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation was stretched and so became less energetic and soon protons and eventually hydrogen and helium were able to condense out of the “soup” of quarks and leptons. When this happened the universe became transparent to most wavelengths and the light, which was a ruminant of the early annihilation, was left to travel onwards to through an ever expanding space. This radiation is called the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). So in fact there is nowhere in this universe that is truly black, even current theories on black holes say that they actually glow. There are certainly things in the universe that was cannot see even with our technology such as the theoretical dark matter, glowing black holes or even neutron stars and those are the “known unknowns”. To put it all together from a physics point of view there is no such thing as pure darkness wherever you look there is something.
So there you are, the cold hard physics, void of any quantum theory regarding what occupies the darkness. I somehow doubt I’ve answered your question and if that is the case can I ask you to rephrase? Are you saying that detecting the absence of light i.e. a lower intensity of light, is not the same as detecting darkness? If that’s the case you are talking about the very fabric of the universe it’s self and, though you may not wish to hear this, you can’t approach such questions with simple classical physics. Every day the notion of the Newtonian (clockwork) universe seems to be slipping away in favour of more subtle notions such as quantum theory. Personally I would like to believe that the universe is fundamentally built on laws of probability and is not 100% predictable, to me it’s the difference of the meaning of life being a complex monte carlo simulation to answer a question god itself can’t or the meaning of life being a copy-paste function god uses to upload its holiday snaps. I don’t necessarily believe in god but if this universe is 100% predictable we have no free will choice would just be an illusion and the meaning of life could be nothing but mundane. So embrace quantum theory :p.

Craigzz... even when you go into the blackness, turning off the lights, the world is still there. you are only using one of your senses. feel around you man, smell it, taste it.... listen. it is all still there.

I'm sorry, I dont believe in quantum theory or string theory, i see them as a distraction from the real science of our universe. Just because we dont understand, we should not look for fantastical theory to explain the universe. Such theory has wasted decades of 'real' science, and i dont much care if such believers say its proven fact, not to me its not.

Hey, I am all ears, tell me the real science of the universe, no religion though please.

Craigzz
- 11/17/2011 at 06:07

consider Gravity, this seemingly invisible force, the two must be related. A black hole is infinite gravity, and infinite blackness. Carbon must have the ability to turn into what we call gravity, invisible in the presence of light, yet when the lights are turned off, its there, it is the darkness and the gravity, and it is everywhere, all the time, even in light, it is there. Carbon is the essential building block of everything, it must be gravity, it must be space, and in a way, we use it to figure out time, by carbon decay. Carbon is the strongest material known, so why cant it be the weakest ? I believe carbon may be more mysterious than we can ever hope to understand, it is the creator of all known life, including humans. If i happened to be religious, and the blackness is everywhere, i would have to consider this dark force is the creator of everything, and detectable by nothing.

No, nobody here is understanding, I am asking what is the blackness ? Space is often described as a fabric, a black hole is described as a 'rip' in this fabric, stars are described as warping this fabric, but space is a perfect vacuum, it looks black, but is it really black ? This blackness is everywhere, if i go into a room without a window, i can find myself in total darkness, but what is this darkness which makes up most of the universe, or at least looks as if it does. But i think what is even more strange about the blackness is, I can go into a room which is full of objects, turn off the lights and find myself in the blackness, but i know the room is not an empty space or void, it is full of objects i cannot see, but i know they are there, because i saw them when the light was on, so, is the blackness of space actually full of things i cannot see ? If i were to be around when all the stars die, and i had no source of light, the blackness and the darkness would be the only thing left, but what is it ?

Do not quite know what you mean, but "black" is the absence of the electro-magnetic spectrum we call light, that activates our colour receptors in our eyes, so we may see, without light we then rely on our other senses, hearing touching, smelling and so on.

In the pure blackness of space it is never empty at the quantum level.

Or to look at it another way, if everything was pure black only, and you would be cognizant, it would be another reality suited to the absence of light, and no doubt according to multiverse theory, string theory, there is such a one. But of course if it was a so called black/void, which is impossible to define unless you were cognizant in a void, which of course is impossible. So there is always something instead of nothing.

According to quantum, string theory, we flip the universe every Planck second with our fleeting now's that are instantly transposed into the past, we always live in the past not the future, so who's to tell what is real or not real.

ddss
- 07/13/2012 at 09:50

Only black absorbs all light. If you blend alll primary colors you get white light. BUT in paint, you need all the colors to make black paint.

Johny
- 11/16/2011 at 01:04

Can anyone recommend a good documentary dedicated to Loop Quantum Gravity?

I think one of the greatest unanswered questions is, what is black ? most of the universe is black, we can see black if we also have light, but we dont know what it is, we are blind, all known instruments cannot detect or analyse it. The only black i know is carbon black, is this what the universe is made of ? Why is a black hole black ? is it also made of carbon ? Carbon, under extreme pressures turns to diamond, given that a black hole is so highly compressed, you would think it may be diamond, but diamond would not even withstand such intense gravity. There has to be an element in space, which we have not seen before, it is black, and it must be what black holes and possibly our entire universe is made of. We cannot see this black, but i propose a way in which it might be possible to understand a black hole. If we can capture the dying light from a star which went supa nova hundreds of millions of years ago, from the moment just before it went supa nova, we can analyse this light and it might just give us clues as to the elemental composition of the star just before it turns into a black hole. We would then have the ingredients which formed the black hole, and the ability to work out the pressures involved to then work out the combination of all these factors which 'changed' this matter into a black hole. We could reverse engineer the creation of a black hole, and possibly unravel the secrets of what Is black. We know this matter from a dying star is crushed by infinite gravity, but the matter must change into something black, and it is my belief, rightly or wrongly, that it is a form of unknown carbon, which i base on the theory that carbon would most likely be the most abundant element pre supa nova, it would seem that carbon as we know it, can be made into something beyond diamond, and beyond diamond would appear to be a black and infinitely powerful and possibly fluid like carbon element. But then again i'm not a two electrons can be in two places at once kind of guy and more the god does'nt play dice with the universe.

Don't quite know what you are getting at, But "Black" can be defined as the visual experienced when no visible light reaches the three types of colour sensitive visual receptors in the eye that give us our broad band spectrum of colours.

Black holes are black because of the intense gravity that cause the black holes to warp space into itself allowing nothing to escape including light. Nothing to do with carbon.

And yes, it does seem that your god does play dice with the universe, check chaos theory. Or if you really want go deep in the rabbit hole try quantum mechanics.

David Stegen
- 10/15/2011 at 12:29

I dont know what all the black stuff is in the universe, but to the best of my knowledge a black hole is a tear in the fabric of space and time, such intense gravity it literally rips through the fabric of space and time. Picture a bullet piercing a cement wall, in essence that hole is what a black hole is, we just don't understand where it goes or why the gravity is so intense. The color of a black hole has nothing to do with the composition of elements, its simply a drop off from our universe, and regarding your two electrons at 2 places at once. That is one of the fundamental keys in science proving that we have souls. Your mind is here in space and time and your soul is in a different space and time and only connected with your body through consciousness.

Platoson
- 07/27/2011 at 10:09

So looking into deep space with the most powerful telescopes, our top scientists have noticed a cosmic dance when galaxies collide, but I seem to remember reading Hindu texts from ancient philosophers that the universe is just one great big cosmic dance. Interesting how science is just beginning to validate what some of the great sages have said many centuries ago.

I don't think using the same wording is validating the beliefs. They could be using that wording for a completely different idea.

Craigzz
- 07/27/2011 at 02:39

Actually, Leonard Suskin is wrong, and Stephen Hawking is wrong. The error of there ways is in the assumption that information is lost forever when it enters a black hole. Information may be spaghettified and atoms crushed into a singularity, but the information remains, it remains in the singularity of the black hole. We simply do not know what happens to a black hole after its formation, but the similarities between black holes and the birth of our own universe from a single point of highly compressed energy cannot be ignored.

you do realize they are two of the greatest minds of our century and that you're commenting on online video posts with the nickname "craigzz" right? but nevermind that I'm sure they actually are wrong and we should all discredit them over this post

natasha0
- 11/24/2011 at 04:07

He wasn't saying that, he was just using this message board to throw around his ideas.
Thats the point i believe?
Although im sorry to say it Craigzz, your not making too much sense.

Craigzz
- 07/27/2011 at 02:24

The notion that not only is information preserved, but it exists elsewhere almost like a backup copy, well, mind-boggling. Could it be that there is a place after life as we know it ? If a person falling into a black hole is destroyed, yet all the information relating to that person is preserved, then there really is no death as we understand death, but, the person who falls into the black hole, clearly experiences death.
This is still a paradox to me.

I think your confusion comes from thinking that information relating to a person and the person themselves are the same thing. When a star is sucked into a black hole, that star is no longer in existence as we know it. However the information on how it affected other things in our universe still exists.

natasha0
- 11/24/2011 at 04:14

Actually although that was a controversial theory presented by Stephen Hawking, he later admitted that loss of information is impossible.
It is now recognized in physics as a building block fact that information is never lost.

Patrick Lisinski
- 05/02/2012 at 08:41

clearly what theyre getting at would be the idea that what we perceive as a 3 dimensional reality is merely a representation of the 2 dimensional storage of information elswhere. in other words everything we perceive in theory would actually "exist" elsewhere. welcome to the matrix haha

If light and matter is pulled in from all directions, and the matter is converted to energy as it passes the event horizon, then there must be a point at the very center where all this energy collides with it's self. It seems that nothing can withstand this titanic collision of particles., but since energy cannot be destroyed but merely change form, this must explain the energy we see being ejected. It is coming from the very center of the singularity. Does this mean there is a space in the center where nothing and something exist at the same time? An atom sized spot in the center that is both hollow and full at the same time, as the imploding energy fills the space and is simultaniously ejected with equal force?

quote: TriforceV4 "Huh!?
I don’t really understand the concept of how Black-holes give evidence of the 2nd dimension holographic image at the edge of the universe…

Besides, String Theory is just that a Theory… The more astro-physicists try to understand the universe the more they find out that they have no idea wtf is going on..

Don’t get my wrong, the Math is there, and its good math that explains the fundamental physics and raises questions about the nature of reality.., But the more science delves into the proverbial rabbit hole of the true nature of mater, the more stranger and paradoxical it becomes…
What a conundrum"

try looking up more documentaries on string theory... im sure youll find that they have already proved that this "theory" is more correct than you lead others to believe!

I feel as though the answers are right at our finger tips and for some reason it is being over looked perhaps in a few decades of careful study and observation a much clearer picture will emerge. The infinte paradox of reality seems to have no end but as science advances the fundemental principles become simpler and yet more complex. Perhaps our brain capacity hasn't quite reached a level of understanding capable of computing our own origins or perhaps its right under our nose.

Gravity does not account for Electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak Nuclear force. The fact that we cannot see anything smaller than atoms we have to assume something smaller is there. So some people are saying that the smaller "things" are strings.String theory..Since there is no way at all to test this theory it is not science at all. It is philosophy. We have seen black holes. We have seen atoms. We know that protons, neutrons and electrons are there (Radiation). Math can explain everything and it does but you MUST be able to test your theory...or else you are a philosopher. Not a scientist.

When Einstein proposed E=MCsqaured many scientists said the same thing,"its impossible to test" and at the time that was true, however that equation allows us to make some guesses about things we can test that would only be there if the theory where correct or at least close. Like light bending around a massive object set in between the source and the observer. And the same is true for String Theory, we may not be able to test it directly, but we can test conclussions taht can be drawn from it.

Brett Poole
- 07/01/2011 at 09:13

There ARE ways to test for smaller things than atoms... using particle accelerators, they're called quarks.

Archie McIsaac
- 11/24/2012 at 20:45

and electrons and gluons and photons and nutrinos and neutrons...these are all smaller as well and have already been discovered. We have already known for a long time that atoms are not the smallest particles.

Archie McIsaac
- 11/24/2012 at 20:50

Some would say they are one in the same. After all without philosophy why would anything be researched.

Greywall
- 08/20/2010 at 17:54

“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?… Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?” - "Stephen Hawking"

I forgot to say, look at the video lectures, they have a play icon next to them!

If you have basic (high school) trig and vector algebra then you may be able to jump straight into Lewins video lectures. If not, there is another course on mit open edu in the maths section called 'multivariable calculus'. The first 3 of these video lectures will bring you up to speed on vectors and trig.
That should get you started and headed in the right direction.

If you have any maths questions, i don't mind answering them as i regularly check TDF comments. Just try to be really specific about the questions you want to ask.

Sorry to butt into your conversation! I have an answer to your question but you may not like it as there are no shortcuts to learning Physics! The methodical step by step approach is the only way. The question then becomes how much determination, drive and passion do you have for it?

As a starting point you will need:

basic trigonometry, vector algebra (very much the language of Physics) and in general a robust math training session.

After that: Newtonian mechanics is a natural way to start physics and there is a good free coure on MIT open edu. Once you complete Newtonian mechanics you will then have the basic tools to move up the ladder onto Relativity!!

If your interest is just cursory you will not achieve it, if however you have the passion for it, you will succeed.

So if I intend to learn some physics, cosmology and such so I can become more knowledgeable on this subject, where would you suggest I start? A sort of layman's introduction, before tackling the actual equations?

I have to add, it is impossible to achieve the speed of C. at 99.99% it will be still be one step ahead of you, you will basically be frozen in time, never achieving the speed of C.

The only way to travel faster than the speed of C. is to bend spacetime itself.

I knew that much, I was just looking at the question as if it were possible. You know like observing time-dilation, which obviously you can't since the light to observe it with would never escape the black hole... Of course, considering it came from HM, I probably shouldn't have done that. :D

I agree with that entirely. In fact I was going to give the same answer you did to the first question but you'd already done it. My point is since the one creating the light is going faster than light by many times, he can turn the light on and off several times before the first flash has even moved. SO... wouldn't it seem that they were all created at once by an outsider who is slower than light?

I have no idea what Null Physics is, but it seems interesting. I've arrived at my conclusion using only rational thought in my spare time. I had to picture "nothing" as an expanse of gray to make any sense of it, since every time I pictured blackness, I kept screwing it up with space. Although I do know that it wouldn't be an expanse of "gray" either... It's mind boggling :D

If you are going faster than the light, and the light is still going at the speed of light, and you are flashing the light on and off as you go, for an observer wouldn't it appear that the many flashes of light showed up at the same time? After all, if you are going faster than the speed of light, we can't see you, only the light when it appears. but if you turn on the light a few times before the first flash of light begins to move, then the light *seems* to appear all at once... right?

It seems you are in parallel with my take on "Null Physics" Where I state there is no such thing as oblivion. Because you have to be conscious to define it. How can you, or anything, be conscious if you are in so called oblivion?

It is on some posts, but will write it again.

Null Physics states that the universe began from the number zero. Physicists hypothesize that the state of "nothing" is actually "something", because if there is nothing, there would have to be something, that has become nothing. Nothing is filling something, this goes as far as to say, that the universe is nothing, and does not exist.

The reason for this is, if everything is to the value of zero, which is the "something" of "nothing", then you would have nothing. Almost like multiplying a negative times a positive. Physicists call the zero's that make up the universe geometric points, which are similar to singularities, but do not condense matter. Geometric points only represent what is not there. And this is how the universe "exists".

Here's my take on things (please give comment on any mistakes as I am a layman when it comes to black holes and physics):

The question of why something and not nothing is not proof anything really. The fact that "something" was in existence in the beginning does not inherently *mean* anything.

When people think of "nothing" they tend to picture an immense blackness. Like space without the starts. Unfortunately, in a realm of "nothing" there wouldn't wouldn't *be* empty space. There has to be "something" for something to even be empty. That's why space (the literal space, not what we call the expanse outside of earth) didn't exist until the beginning.

This is the problem with trying to explain the "big bang" to people who don't understand. They usually see the "egg" as sitting in the middle of "nothing" and then exploding outwards and "filling" "nothing" up with "something". This is mostly, (unfortunately) because it is the best analogy we can come up with right now. But in reality, the egg *wasn't* sitting in the middle of "nothing". The *only* "something" in existence was the egg. And then it... hatched I guess you could say (lol) which is another bad analogy because it assumes something laid the egg... You see? By attempting to explain I can only go in circles. The point is, "something" didn't *have* to come from "nothing", for just as "nothing" could always exist, (and indeed can be said to still exist, outside the edge of the universe as before, but that's another conversation...) "something" would also simply always exist. It's in fact *necessary* for "something" to have always existed. For even if you are a deist of some type, any God would be "something" even if not a physical "something". The only argument between theists and atheists is whether the original "something" was the matter we already have proof of existence, or the spiritual matter that science has no currently accepted proof of. The two ("nothing" and "something") have equal values on the scale. It's a multiple choice question with only two answers. Take your bet. Of course there's the hidden third answer, where they both exist, "something" being the universe, and "nothing" being outside it and yet also not in some other universe... But back to the point, if matter and energy can never be created or destroyed, only changed from one form into another, even on the ultimate extreme possibly going from matter to energy and vice verse, then by *definition* we already understand that it always was, and had no beginning. Which, incidentally, is exactly the belief about God.

H.M
in my ignorance i'm inclined to think that all the super-mass objects out there are more like neutron stars. in that they aren't as paradoxical and exotic as theorised, and that they have volume. it may be the size of an atom, electron or whatever. but they exist in space.
i can't imagine infinite density in space/time. concepts like mass and density require volume in my head.so i reckon it was only before, or at the big bang that it could ever really be infinite.
but of course i'm just a smart chimp.
i hope you'll overlook or reinterperate "ever has been" and "before"
oops i said "reckon" too! hehe..
it's quite amazing how many really smart people can waste so much time dreaming up ridiculous theories. like the guy in the next episode who wanted to build a big cylindrical time machine that requires as much complexity as the universe.
i know i shouldn't be too skeptical, as my own grasp is minimal. and "crazy" theories have been proven right before.
but still. i think some of them just need to take some acid and then get on with life.

So we can say spacetime is everywhere by Einstein's definition of spacetime.

But a black hole is a place where Einstein's definition of spacetime is no longer valid.

So can we still call it "spacetime" or is it something else? It is a place where the definition of spacetime is no longer valid?

Maybe we should call it BlackSpaceTime.

I concede because I really dont know the exact moment where Einstein's spacetime fails. Is it the event horizon or is it at the singularity.

My understanding was that the classical definition of space time failed at the event horizon but I really couldn't back that info up so I cant argue.

Combine this with all the analogies that tend to leave out important details and I cant tell what is what.

I hope quantum gravity shows that black holes cannot exist... I hope that all these super dense objects are just some kind of cold neutron stars. I think it would be just deserves to prove all the speculation needless.

hey all.
ok. enjoying the discourse. but feeling a bit lost and lazy for hoping ya'll can explain the question to the answer "42".
so i've just been to wiki.

H.M
i was suprised, off-put, sceptical or in disagreement with your statement,
"Your ideas express a belief that the world inside a event horizon has things like time and space…" ( are you referring to observed black holes or theory?)

what i found at wiki seems to confirm my thoughts.

the event horizon is otherwise known as the Schwarzschild radius.
the super massive black hole at galactic center is purported to have a radius of 7.8 million km's!

Black hole event horizon. (wiki)
"Once a particle is inside the horizon, moving into the hole is as inevitable as moving forward in time, and can actually be thought of as equivalent to doing so, depending on the spacetime coordinate system used."
if the one at the center of our galaxy has a radious of 7.8 million km's then by dfinition it has volume, time/space.
the singularity itself, well that's another story.
what did i miss?

I had no order in mind. So refrain , if you will , from the psychoanalysis, my friend. I agree with you for the most part. And I know quantum is the micro scale and classical the macro.So I do agree with you on what you are saying.

@ireannach666 - "Why things happened/happens is quantum and what entails is classic."

The exact inverse could be just as true... why did you chose the order that you did?

You seem to want an emphasis on "quantum" for beginnings.

Just realize that quantum mechanics cannot predict black holes.

If you want to form a gas giant like jupiter... you cant use quantum mechanics.

If you want to plot a course to mars you cant use quantum mechanics.

You cant make a human brain work with quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics only works for the very small.

The Big bang isn't called the small bang for a reason. Pretty much everything we know about the universe is based on classical physics. But if you decide you want to study a small piece of the pie you need a different set of tools. Those tools are in just one small box in the huge workshop of tools that describe the universe.

A Aerospace engineer can build you a fancy plane... but if you want a cd-player in your plane you need an electrical engineer. Is the electrical engineer more important because he uses transistors? Is the Aerospace engineer more important because he can make the whole thing fly?

There is nothing special about quantum mechanics. It is no more important then say thermo dynamics.

I just haven't seen anyone trying to sell thermo dynamics as a god on youtube lately.

@Achems
Then again , doesnt all that exotic matter talk really come to "special relativity"? Where the mass of something increases its speed, and hits infinity when its speed gets nearer to the speed of light. So I guess that we would need an infinite amount of energy to hit light speed. Making inter-wormhole travel highly unlikely but not impossible.
And Bad A**!

Yeah , that is where I was going. That would be some pretty far out shyte but awesome in its own.

John Wheeler coined wormhole and blackhole. I guess thats just trivia but cool to know. He kinda came with the geons and tf the first than one of , the diagrams concerning a wormhole as a passage linking different spacetime.

I think at the first moments of the big bang, there was no gravity, only inflation, nothing that was solid, only quarks, photons, after about one billion years, rapid cooling allowed for matter to form.

Well ,Im not saying I can prove or disprove these ideas.More like entertaining and weighing. Perhaps you are right , more than speculation. Assuming you mean QM/T has more for than against. Because I would agree.
But , until the evidence pointing to is proven fact...

However I was thinking the same as Achems on your question from the start.

"if you want to apply quantum mechanics to things in the scales they were designed to be used, I say soot the moon."

Why cant Q/M be the amswer to why and not how? Some could come to the conclusion that ( I say this lightly. )Why things happened/happens is quantum and what entails is classic.

Remember , I stand by what is proven not what was or could be. I dont sway towards one side or the other , when it comes to QT because there are too many questions not yet answered. Again, I like where we are headed , though.

Next question... if someone was on the side of the tracks. And your train traveling at 99792458 m/s went by and you turned on your flashlight and pointed it forward. How fast would the light appear to be traveling to the observer?

@eireannach666 - Anything requiring exotic matter to exist is way beyond just speculation.

Lets worry about what gravity is before we worry about something that might be repelled by it.

My personal idea about worm holes is that they don't work well with Newtonian physics. If something doesn't work well with Newtonian physics then it is not going to work well with 250lbs of me.

If you want to apply quantum mechanics to things in the scales they were designed to be used, I say soot the moon.

If you can prove that a neutrino can travel through a wormhole I might not be surprised.

I just dont think you will be able to do the same with something trillions of times more massive.

BTW, Im not going to answer my speed of light question... Im waiting for one of these powerhouse intellectuals that speculate about worm holes and exotic particle elliptical orbits and Quantum Theory to answer it. Its not a hard question. I asked Google and the answer was on the first result.

What is the answer? Seriously. Ive not the energy to figure it but that is a good one.

Also , I have a question for you. (Or anybody.)What do think about traversal wormholes? Keeping one open in order to travel. I believe Sagan asked this same question to Thorne while talking about covering interstellar distance at a trans-light speed. And what was gathered by research was basically it would need a negative energy matter and a huge amount of negative pressure."Exotic matter." Any views on this and the Casimir effect?

At the first moments of the universe and big bang, gravity could of produced some areas of negative energy where natural wormholes existed/still exist and are self controlled and stable.

Which is just as much speculation as a lot of other Q/T findings but also just as plausible. inter-universe connections have been an issue since Einstein and Rossen(sp?)

Another question of trivia, where did the term wormhole derive from? Anybody?

Ok here is another noodle buster. I am asking this so that you think of the universe in the terms of relativity and not in terms of that vector generating facial recognition lizard mush between your ears.

If you are on a train going 99,792,458 m/s. And you turned on a flash light and pointed it forward. How fast would the light leaving your flash light be going?

@ Atrophy - "The collisions could be accelerating particles to a sufficient escape velocity or creating exotic particles that can escape with less velocity."

At this point it would no longer be black and be about the same as a neutron start.

If something is escaping the even horizon it is by definition not a black hole.

"Or we can go with the idea that on the quantum level a particle can be in two places at once or disappear, then reappear in another location entirely."

Quantum and black holes dont really mix. Quantum mechanics is about statics so the question would be "what are the chances this even could happen". You cant make things appear and disappear to fit your ideas.

What are the chances a particle will appear and fall across the event horizon. If the probability is high than it is worth noting.

There is a chance I will stop existing and start existing in your living room drinking your beer... The chances are not large enough to worry about.

"IF (note the IF) you could observe it "

The only reason you need to observe something is to participate in a thought experiment.

The math describe what you might see but you don't need to be present for the math to work.

"Light escaping before the event horizon at a slower rate"

Do you mean less light or that the light is slowing down?

Do you mean there are like 5 particles per second instead of 10 pps, or do you actually think light would not be traveling at 299792458 m/s anymore?

If you think light "slows down" because of gravity you really need to take a step back and go look up what the definition of a black hole is.

You are not very good at expressing your notions. Use simple words... The simple explanation is usually the correct one.

Your ideas express a belief that the world inside a event horizon has things like time and space... There are no such things as orbits and collisions in a black hole.

eiriannach666
"For one to say that a black-hole is escapable is to contradict the word. THAT is the “hole”(whole) “point”..
No disrespect intended. Just saying."
Didn't say they were escapable. After the event horizon everything is drawn toward the singularity because the gravity is too strong for it to go in any outward direction.

@ Hate
Thank you for a more constructive response this round :)
"This doesn't sound right at all. Matter can not be created or destroyed."
In order for an object to be hurtling toward the singularity at nearly the speed of light and still be seen by an observer a second instance would have to exist in that sense we are looking at every object a black hole consumes to be trapped in time dilation and still observable for nearly an eternity before it is actually across the event horizon.
The other way of looking at it is, the observed object accelerating toward the singularity would appear to be slowing down (time dilation effect) IF (note the IF) you could observe it traveling away from you at thousands of miles per second... I think that's where our misunderstanding is at.
In the understanding of the description as a directly observable event, something you could watch happening with the naked eye. Light escaping before the event horizon at a slower rate is the only way it makes any sense to me. The time dilation is simply something we cant observe directly.

"Here is a noodle buster.
What happens if you get a really long stick and try to poke it through the even horizon?"
You would have a shorter stick I should think :P
That and it should become inconceivably heavy as it approaches the event horizon and you would drop it.

"Let me try to hit on hawking’s evaporation."
This is created energy by definition no ?
I would like to think of a black hole as a giant atom smasher in the same sense as the LHC. The collisions could be accelerating particles to a sufficient escape velocity or creating exotic particles that can escape with less velocity. The particles that don't escape get drawn back into the singularity for another go. An elliptical slingshot effect around the singularity, within the event horizon. Or we can go with the idea that on the quantum level a particle can be in two places at once or disappear, then reappear in another location entirely. ~ Down the rabbit hole

so matter becomes one with the singularity after crossing the event h, in the time it takes light to cross the diameter of the EH? or instantaneously? orrr something else.
event horizon is just point of no return for light. not singularity itself so it must take time and space beyond EH to "reach it" no?

A.R
i really don't see how an image could be maintained after an object went through event horizon. it should just fade to black as finite quantities of photons are radiated away or absorbed.

H.M
i must be misunderstanding this concept of information still.
what is the function of using this word in this context if its meaning is the historical interactions of particles within time/space? like in reversing thermodynamics.
what's it got to do with black holes. mass, gravity etc;

if anti particle falls in and destroys equal positive mass,and new positive particle slips loose in form of radiation (is that photons?). isn't that radiation a normal transitional state of information(?)energy and thus the 2 particles cancel each other out? one lost one gained. so no sum loss of mass in the universe?
i guess that's still the destruction of mass. but it's also an equal creation of it.

how could one not reach the singularity after crossing event horizon? isn' that the point? all mass becomes one,all particles envitabley fall in?

the stick would stretch, get redder and wink out at the event horizon.

or is it more likely that they're not black holes but dark red holes? shinning with the redshifted light of all they've consumed.

@ hawkpork - All singularities are theory. Some bodies in space have the mass and density to be a black whole but we cannot confirm the existence of a black whole.. yet.

Let me try to hit on hawking's evaporation.

Two particles appear in a vacuum for reasons I do not understand. One a anti-particle. If one particle happens to cross the even horizon it will fall in... there is a chance the other particle will not fall in.

If the anti-particle falls in, the particle will annihilation a normal particle in the hole. The hole will then be slightly less massive. The other particle will be seen as radiation. The radiation will be the same mass as what was lost to the anti-particle. So not only will you see "radiation" but it will seem to evaporate.

Since the particle that is outside the whole doesn't know anything about the particle that fell into the hole the universe suddenly has less information.

This is how I understand it and can be 100% wrong.

The idea of "information" is hard for me to grasp when particles can appear out of the vacuum.

What would happen if you were to fall into a black hole?
As you approach the black hole, your watch would run slower than the watch of your colleagues on the spaceship (time dilation). Also your comrades notice that you begin to take on a reddish color. This is due to the warping of space in the vicinity of the hole.

Then just before you enter the hole (pass through the event horizon). Your friends would see you apparently "frozen" there, just outside the event horizon, and to them, your watch would have stopped (if they could observe it). They would never see you enter the hole, because at that distance from the singularity an object must travel at the speed of light to maintain its distance. Thus your dim red image would stay frozen in their eyes for as long as the hole exists.

However from your vantage point, as you enter the black hole, nothing has changed.
The most likely outcome is that you are compacted into a miniscule size upon the singularity.

H.M
I'm bit confused here.
wasn't it hawkins premise that black holes deconstruct matter?
and that plumber guys opposing premise that they don't?
that the "conservation of info", which i interperate as energy, is a constant?
didn't he "win" the disagreement?
doesn't this mean black holes don't deconstruct matter?

Have they made any singularities in lab's yet? of any size?
or is it theory?

howdy all,
the 2D hologram concept is a trip.
i'm not satisfied with the analogies in this doc. i think they're a bit confusing. i know it's hard to describe maths with ideas the average person can comprehend. but i'm not sure they've even tried very much when they made this.
why, for example the continuous use of the word "weight" instead of mass?
and, as i said and no one seemed to care (unusually for a pedantic bunch like us), the mass of the world ain't enough to create a black hole. so why say it?!
the whole mind experiment at the end i didn't really get either.
didn't they say that an observer would see her frozen on the event horizon? doesn't that mean a continous emittance of photons
in the form of an image of her?
what would the source of a continued emittance be? i thought the light either gets sucked in or radiates away.
wouldn't she just slow down and then blink out at the event horizon?
sigh.. morgan.. take out the earring and get serious already!

"we should otherwise be able to look at a black hole and see everything it has pulled into"

Ahh... we "see" by our eyes absorbing light... since all light past the event horizon is drawn in... we can never see "in" and it would be "black".

"consider voicing my ideas as a layman"

Try starting small... I have made a hobby of black holes for more then a decade. I still don't understand more then the basics. All the 2d hologram stuff means nothing to me. I don't like talking about black holes because they are way past our average understanding of our universe.

Words like fall into, see into, before, after, do note work with black holes. Trying to interpret a mathematical anomaly with words that have no basis in math is a fools errand.

I will also say that everyone has thoughts. Since everyone has thoughts it is not rare or unusual. For something that every Tom, Dick and Harry has I am not impressed. Some people even have grand thoughts. Shakespeare's thought process was above and beyond average. Does that make Shakespeare a good scientist... No.

The significance of science isn't about having thoughts, its about being able to reproduce and observe nature. Some of the greatest discovers (background radiation, nuclear model of the atom, etc) happen not because someone thought them up. They happened because no matter what the scientist thought, they could not deny the results of there experiments and what they were observing.

So yes, you need thoughts to be scientists, and indeed the most brilliant scientists usually have brilliant thoughts. You are correct. But just thoughts alone 'no matter how unusual' do not contribute to science.

Brilliant thoughts without science gives us a beautifully intricate religion.

You said, "Does not quantum only explain classical or try , anyways? ( doing a pretty good job , at least?) I would think so…Pros and Cons , No?"

That is ther whole source of the contraversy QM, while giving great predictions at the quantum level, does not give good predictions at the relativity level. Logic would say that all quantum effects added up would yeild general relativity- but it doesn't. Thierfore alot of people say it can't be it's not logical. Others say stop trying to change the universe to fit your idea of "right" and accept the data. I say this is a symptom of our own ignorance and we will eventually marry the two theories. To say that is to have faith in science. Thats right I said faith, makes you wonder- huh.

You disagree with and think ridiculous the notion that,..“Thoughts no matter how unusual have value in scientific advancement.”

As substantiated by HateMachine,.. "Once again your are completely wrong. Scientific advancement is based on repeatable experimentation and observation. You obviously have no idea how science works."

O.K.,.. so IF the world according to HateMachine is correct,..and my statement is false and bogus THEN modern belief would place the earth at the center of the solar system, the stars riding upon the back of a giant turtle, and carnival cruise lines would not be in business for fear of their ships falling off the edge of the flat earth into an eternal abyss.

ELSE, you don't quite get the meaning of the statement.

Remember the origin point of the scientific method which is the foundation of science begins with inquiry, and one's inquiry can be anything, no matter how bizzare or controversial.

@Hate
So correct my incorrect assumptions.
The way I interpret it, the time dilation effect would create 2 instances of the subject, one that crashes toward the singularity in an instant and one that remains for the observer, and it would seem only for the observer, because we should otherwise be able to look at a black hole and see everything it has pulled into its gravitational void for technically its entire life trapped in this time dilation effect.

I am no physicist nor am I the sharpest at math, nor am I going to be moved to become one by your comments. I'm just wrapping my brain around cause and effect, what I have learned and can observe.
Your obviously far more educated or well read into the subject than I am and I should never consider voicing my ideas as a layman for fear of nonconstructive and diminutive rebuttal.

Wow, HateMachine you are in serious need of a long and satisfying lube job,.. when was your last 5,000 mile check ? Reality is not nearly as rigid as you think it to be. Science is still playing with sticks and stones. Let me guess you are not capable of thinking beyond the latest edition of Scientific America. As for this wonderful forum, I only ever suggest my views, which is a freedom we all have to express, I never impose my views, like you do so commonly within your posts. Think about what you are saying, how you come across to others, and how big your false ego has become, but ultimately how non-productive your responses are to other views which are equally as important, you might see the light, you might help others see the light, and you might become less of a hard boiled egg.

What, is it so hard to accept that a black hole might not entirely stop light as soon as its within its gravitational field. Escaping light would take longer and longer to escape the further into the gravitational field. Science has already managed to slow light down so I know that much is possible. As for the time dilation effect. Objects at speed 'slow down' until they eventually appear to stop entirely as they approach the speed of light, I saw the bullet train time machine concept in a previous documentary on here. I don't believe the effect of a person appearing to stop in time on the event horizon of a black hole has anything to do with that.

Once again your are completely wrong. Scientific advancement is based on repeatable experimentation and observation. You obviously have no idea how science works. Stop try to justify your tedious whims. Science doesn't exist so you can make up some fancy puffery and try to push it on people that only agree with you reciprocally. "I wont poopoo your idea if you wont poopoo mine then we can both feel pretty and smart.

Science is about defending. Not blinding accepting. So either start backing up your ideas or stop getting your panties tangled every time you try to engage in a scientific discussion with noting but fantasy.

Until you determine beyond any doubt that all others are wrong in presenting a different perspective, then stop trying to deny others their thoughts. Thoughts no matter how unusual have value in scientific advancement. Thought, learning and change are all connected. We each have the right to our thoughts, and the right not to be censored by those that wish only to promote their philosophy. Argument is critical for expanding the knowledge of science, but you do not argue, from most of the posts which I have read originating from HateMachine, you seem only interested in throwing sand and negatively criticising any view that contradicts your perceived reality. It is fine to not agree, you just need to be less arrogant and more accepting towards other beliefs. Doing this might allow you to mature as a person. Is this why you call yourself HateMachine ? Seems very fitting, but also a very sad shame.

BTW structure in chaos exists simply because it can be called chaos, or observed to be within a random chaotic state. The quantum stream is postulated by Hawking and others as the state in which energy exists as it moves into a singularity. Read Stephen Hawking's papers on the mechanics of black holes.

Maybe the whole universe is what happens when all the matter in a universe falls into a black hole and gets blown out the other end of a singularity!?!

Or maybe the universe is formed when a super-super massive black hole falls into another black hole. When the 2 singularities meet the mass of one singularity gets blown out into a new universe created by the cross section of 2 singularities.

If the original singularity had a positive charge then new universe would be populated with normal matter and not anti-matter.

Also we can explain the strange fact that gravity is weaker then the other 3 forces because gravity is still flowing between the singularities while the other forces are cemented in this singularity.

The Big Bang was in fact the moment when one singularity pierced another singularity. All the mass in the original singularity is now observed in our new dimension of time and space created by singularity cross sectioning.

Yep... Im going to write a paper and get some hopeless fools to follow me and make me internet famous.

O>k./ I guess that answers my question, you guys do not consider him valid.But it was Achem that told me to look into him, I assumed he at least bought what he had to say. His over all point is that insted of breaking particles down over and over we should try and discover the geometrical shape of the universe, space-time basically. I guess this is the same as the guys that have been trying to find out if the universe is flat or curved, sort of. He seems to think that the structure of our cells and the structure of other natural systems are smaller pieces of the whole. Like we live in a fractal structure of space-time, fractal meaning the over all shape is repeated inside the structure in smaller and smaller models. The break down would be some thing like the universe looks like the galaxy which looks like the solar system which looks like the atom and so on and so forth. He thinks that by studing these smaller parts of the whole we could uncover the structure of the universe itself. He has worked this out to be a sort of 3-demensional star of david built from tetrahedrons surrounded by a sphere and in a symetrical pattern that he says would cancel out all forces to zero in the center. Then he really gets wierd and says that the reasons the ancients built pyramids in so many different cultures was because we have some kind of instinct that this tetrahedron like shape was sugnificant. He also says that some one wrote out "what do we need to know" in a crop and the next day they found a shape very similiar to the one he proposes to be the shape of the universe. Like the aliens could read our writing and understood it but still chose to communicate with geometry, that makes sence. He is obviousely a quack but I have to say this is the most well thought out demensia I have ever seen or heard of. I say he has some valid points about physics though, crazy or not. And watch who you guys reffer people to, if you think they are so crazy don't send others to hear thier junk. No harm, no foul though- I know crazy when I hear it and the guy was interesting any way.

maybe the whole universe is the centre of a mega black hole and trying to escape the edge of the universe would be like escaping the mega black hole horizon and someone looking from the outer edge wouldjust see nothing

I have to agree with The Hating_Machine on this one. Its all well and good postulating sexy math and physics but it has to pass the rigorous dictates of peer review before it's any use. It's not enough to just speculate without verifiable testing. It's ok to postulate crazy physical ideas just test them before you start singing your 'amazing' findings to the world.

Also that Myers-Briggs test was so accurate about me. It gave me two different but closely related types... It seems to be a good model of personality types. To be being able to use this information to get your point across to various different people sound like a good idea... more study is needed.

Ahh... Do not look at his work. Look at why his peers have condemned his work. Actually if i remember correctly he has never got a paper past any kind of review to be published.

You are going to look at his work and decide if he is accurately describing something you don't understand? How does that work? Oh wait I remember... its all about your opinion. There doesn't have to be facts or logic as long as it falls within your belief structure. If it doesn't fall with your belief structure no amount of facts or logic will convince you of it.

No, it is one of the most accurate models in science. There is no chaos in quantum mechanics. It is all statistics and probability.

"but ultimately we need to find new math"

Like I said... the current math is some of the most accurate models in science. Why change something that has given us transistors, cell phones and micro processors.

"There is structure within chaos."

Does this statement have any meaning? There is love within purple. Sounds like you randomly picked a few nouns and throw them up onto a sentence.

"The quantum world exists everywhere, and nowhere, it cannot be pinpointed, yet if you were able to find a way to snatch a piece of it you would succeed everytime. "

What? You are a fool. The machine you are using to type your nonsense relies on quantum mechanics to work. Look up the Double-slit experiment... for a few bucks you can see quantum mechanics at home.

"The quantum world is independant of the random fabrications that originate from it."

What? What is a quantum world? And what random fabrications do you speak of. Did you read this or are you just making it up as you go?

"entering these places simply breaks down the structure that defines our perception of reality within the educated frame of reference."

Oh yeah... show me the math Aristotle. Your mouth diarrhea breaks down my faith in mankind... within the educated frame of reference of course.

"Can you encase the energy within a pound of flesh within a bottle"

Are you trying to start a religious discussion. Becuase it is very easy to look up the number of calories in a pound of flesh.

Are you try to sell us on some idea that you are this mystical free thinker. Seems all you can do is through up random nonsense.

I know this is a free board but try to keep your fairy tells to yourself when the grownups are trying to talk.

"Beyond the event horizon within the singularity of these gravity wells, where form is striped into a quantum stream, could the essence of your thoughts be maintained"

This isn't even good philosophy. Do you even have a point? WTF is a quantum stream. WTF is "essence of your thoughts", sounds like some kind of bubble bath.

You know even philosophy is constrained by logic. I suggest you stop trying to be a Quantum philosopher. You fail at physics. You fail at philosophy.

Just because you can make something up doesn't make it "possible". Go take a class on philosophy. Im sure your local college has a 101 class. You will most likely fail it because it requires work... but at least you will get an idea about how completely wrong you are.

These gravity wells that we call black holes, are simply machines for rendering away the higher energy states of physical matter to produce from complexity the simplified origin state of pure quantum field energy. Black holes de-evolve matter.

The quantum world to us is a form of mathematical chaos, but only because we fail to recognize quantum level structure. The Higgs boson may shed some light, but ultimately we need to find new math. There is structure within chaos.

The quantum world exists everywhere, and nowhere, it cannot be pinpointed, yet if you were able to find a way to snatch a piece of it you would succeed everytime. Quantum energy is the fundamental foundation of our physical world, yet has no geometric form which we recognise. The quantum world is independant of the random fabrications that originate from it. The reality stimulating us, is merely the mechanics of the quantum world, random interactions of quantum energy. We have fabricated the 4 dimensional box that represents our minds perception of this frame of reference we call reality.

Our 4D existance is maintained outside of the event horizon of these gravity wells, entering these places simply breaks down the structure that defines our perception of reality within the educated frame of reference. Within a black hole the energy of our quanta is not destroyed, all that is destroyed is that which had previously been assembled. Energy cannot be created or destroyed only converted from one form to another. The simplest law of nature.

Can you encase a pound of flesh within a bottle ? Can you encase the energy within a pound of flesh within a bottle ? Is thought energy or is thought matter ? Does thought have mass ? Do we encase our thoughts within our skulls ? If thought is energy than what is the purpose of the flesh ? Without form would we have thought ? Beyond the event horizon within the singularity of these gravity wells, where form is striped into a quantum stream, could the essence of your thoughts be maintained ? YES, if thought derives from the quantum level, and NO if thought is dependant upon mass.

"You have to get past some of his ideas about crop circles and other hoky poky kinda stuff but its worth it to see physics from a different but valid point of view."

Well I did not check this guy out, but anyone that has hoky poky views on crop circles does not sound like a scientist to me, it has been experimentally proven that humans can easily create them, so why look for any more exotic reasons?

He might just have interesting cool views on science because unlike everyone else he is not limited by the facts when coming up with theories.

Have you ever heard of Nassim Haramein? I have been checking out his lecture on you tube. His theory is in peer review right now but he has some really fundamentally differnet ways of looking at physics. You have to get past some of his ideas about crop circles and other hoky poky kinda stuff but its worth it to see physics from a different but valid point of view. You may already be familiar with him and his ideas but if not and you are so inclined, check it out. I have questions for someone that has seen his stuff and knows more about classical newtonian physics than I do. At times I think he is crazy but then he turns around and says something or preposes a new theory and you are like , wow. This guy may be the next Einstien or just a wierd dude with some different ideas, I'm not sure.

After seeing the rest of the doc, I find myself a little ... angry... perhaps, at the theory of the 2 dimensional hologram in space idea.
Consider. As an object enters a black hole, the light it reflects is slowed down. That light takes longer and longer to reach the observer hence the 'freezing in time' effect and will eventually fade to black after maybe hundreds of years as the source of the image fell out of the range of escaping light. This object had to enter the horizon in order to leave this light trail in the first place, since we originated within our universe, we have no image trapped on the 'edge' magically projected there.
No profound re-evaluation of the universe required.

Black holes don't break the law of 'conservation of information' the way I see it. Consider it like data encryption and compression. As matter approaches the gravitational horizon of the black hole, its electrons start getting stripped and eventually starts splitting atoms, some blasted away in this process as 'hawking radiation' (the garbage data) then, as it approaches the center it is recombined into heavier elements (recognizable patterns of data).... reverse the process and you have a complete record of everything it ate. Has anyone considered that black holes might have a limit to how much they can consume, eventually dying like a collapsing star in a 'big bang'. Consider a diesel engine... It compresses fuel to the point where it explodes with enough force to push the piston. A black hole by that definition would be wracked by continuous explosions falling back on themselves until one cosmic day it had enough pressure to blast energy and maybe mater out of its gravity well.

Thank's I'll check it out. i have been checking out Nassim Haramein. He is really out thier man, very cool stuff. He kinda lost me on the crop circle thing but the rest was a trip. I need to know more about geometry to really get what he is saying. I think he is saying that the shape of space time itself is the fractal tetrahedron model he is presenting, right? I get that i think but, that still doesn't explain what is contracting. He says that if the universe is expanding something has to be contracting. That something according to him is the vaccuum, or empty space which is actually full of energy radiated by all the things we see. So is he saying space-time is physically contracting toward the infinately small? Or is he saying that the contraction is counter acted by the expansion creating equalibrium in the center. If so then I guess the big bang provided the energy for expansion but what provides the energy for contraction, gravity? Wow, I think i just answered my own question. He is saying that the expansion follows the shape of space-time as well as the contraction, and the two cancell each other out. But if that is true why do we see the universe expanding, this suggests an asymetric system where expansion is stronger than gravity, doesn't it?

What are you guys refferring to when you say INTP or ENFP? I ask because i assume it is a personality profile type thing and I am interested in finding out what i am.

@ wisnoskij

I don't mean to be rude or make you think I am saying I know more than you but, Hate machine is right that this surpasses a symantechs mistake. That said no one here is a s smart as they think they are, least of all those that want to act like they are big daddy science, like they must police other peoples conversations and comments. Hawkins said that once you fall over the event horizon nothing comes back, so nothing that was inside the black hole ever comes back out. Some times though a pair of particles that normally search each other out and anihalate one another gets close enough that one goes over the event horizon and the other does not. This allows for us to have lone particles floating around out thier that we would not expect to see. Honest mistake don't sweat it. You should have seen some of the stuff that i had screwed up.

There a few good online tests (alot of not so good) for Myers-Briggs Type. Lots of fun for the whole family. I found 1 test that was about 300 questions. I tried to "trick" the test and it kept coming up the same way.

Dont just go by the descriptors, they are like reading your horoscope. The test is whats important.

You base your ideas on analogies made by people that base their ideas on science.

I have seen nowhere the term "illusion" used in physics. I have seen many people describe conditions they predict as an illusion. Since their definition of illusion might very well be different then mine it is not an accurate description.

That is why scientist do not base there hypothesis on analogies but math. Math is much more resistant to miss-interpretation.

So when you miss-quote an analogy in makes the ghost of Maxwell punch a kitten.

@ wisnoskij - “Nothing, not even light, can escape the gravitational pull of a black hole.”

Achems Razor is correct. The particle you observe never crossed the event horizon. The fact that one particle has to fall in is proof that Hawking relies on the fact that nothing will escape past the event horizon.

To make it simple, Hawking predicted that energy fluctuations from the vacuum causes the generation of particle-antiparticle pairs near the event horizon of the black hole.

One of the particles falls into the black hole, while the other escapes, before they have the opportunity to annihilate each other. the net result is that, to someone viewing the black hole, it would appear that a particle had been emitted.

hi, John, the following is info. only. Better say that from now on, so won't get attacked. (LOL)

GR. and QM. do not work with each other, yet. No quantum gravity with gravitons, etc:
When predictions are made, goes into the realm of infinite probabilities, just by the mere act of observing, and measuring, makes quantum unpredictable.
Yes, QM. says, if not observed, not there.
The five senses give the touch, smell, hear, see and so on, on reality.

Every one should take Achems advise about Nassim Haramein. He is amazing, could learn public speaking better but still. Why have I never heard of this guy? They say he started working on his unification theory at nine years old, amazing. As time goes on we see that Einstien was not alone in his amazing ability to understand that which is incomprehensible.

3 dimensional space an illusion? Ha, Ha, so funny, have been saying this on many docs.
Nothing to do with so-called spiritualism, just science, right?
@ Hate Machine.:
It is all from (quantum)="not capitalized" everything starts from the smallest that is known so far,

If you people want more about holographic universe, google..."Nassim Haramein"...a physicist who gives a course of lectures on this and much more

@Achems
Funny that you used to support the guy...i suggested it not so long ago and your response was unfavorable.
You change clan or so?
edit: Ok so i read a bit further and see that you first thought he was all that and then they convinced you that he was a clown.
az
This is a reply to guest at the very beginning of the comments in oldest first.

Achems_Razor
- 11/30/2011 at 05:38

Az,

Did not quite support the guy, thought he had interesting stuff, that was until I delved further. I am as science is, always prone to change as more new developments, as in empirical evidence comes into play.

Huh!?
I don't really understand the concept of how Black-holes give evidence of the 2nd dimension holographic image at the edge of the universe...

Besides, String Theory is just that a Theory... The more astro-physicists try to understand the universe the more they find out that they have no idea wtf is going on..

Don't get my wrong, the Math is there, and its good math that explains the fundamental physics and raises questions about the nature of reality.., But the more science delves into the proverbial rabbit hole of the true nature of mater, the more stranger and paradoxical it becomes...
What a conundrum.

Wow, that was wierd stuff. They are saying two things that blow my mind. One, that all we see is mirrorred on some kind of surface at the edge of the universe. Two, that they think the universe has an edge. Do they mean like the end of space-time? If so what happens if you try and go through it? And what surface would be thier for the reflection to project its self on?